Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Long service payment

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

ELECTRONIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY LTD v. COBO ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2696
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP362/2021

Court found that directors Cozzi and Linetti breached fiduciary duties by approving Resolution 1 which cut the Company out of the supply chain for Family Products without considering Company’s separate interests or adequate justification, constituting unfairly prejudicial conduct warranting a buy‑out; other alleged diversions after the premises closure were justified due to operational necessity and did not amount to breach; contractual restraints (NCA, art.8.1 Labour Contract, SHA covenants) were invalid or unenforceable (no consideration and/or unreasonable); many claims by Majority Camp ag…
6 Feb 2026

LAW KEE ALICE v. KENYE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA16/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the Labour Tribunal reasonably rejected the defendants' factual case (notably Zhang's evidence) which removed any factual foundation for alleging a duty to disclose; even if a disclosure duty were arguable, the claimant was negotiating her own employment and did not occupy an ad hoc fiduciary position obliging her to act solely for the employer or to disclose basic statutory limits; the tribunal fulfilled its s20(3) investigatory duty and no arguable point of law is established for appellate intervention.
9 Sept 2025

盧偉河對威格斯物業管理及警衛服務(香港)有限公司,前稱為威格斯物業管理服務(香港)有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA32/2024

Even assuming the respondent did not dismiss the claimant under s9, that did not alter the adjudicator's dismissal of the long service payment claim because the claimant failed to meet the statutory five‑year service requirement under s31R and s32A was inapplicable where the adjudicator found no unlawful dismissal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
6 Mar 2025

盧偉河對威格斯物業管理及警衛服務(香港)有限公司,前稱為威格斯物業管理服務(香港)有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA32/2024

Leave to appeal was granted on a single legal question: whether the respondent dismissed the applicant under section 9 of the Employment Ordinance and, if so, the legal effect of that characterization on the applicant's long service payment claim, because the Tribunal did not clearly determine whether it was treating the termination as summary dismissal despite the respondent having issued a notice/payment in lieu, making the point arguable on law.
16 May 2024

WONG CHAK MING by his natural sister and next friend, WONG CHAK YING 對張記環保有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 719
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4308/2021

Court preferred plaintiff's attendance records and credible witness evidence over defendant's contradictory and evasive witness testimony, inferred regular employer-arranged overtime and non‑payment, found unilateral detrimental changes made without valid consent and failure to accommodate disability amounted to repudiatory breaches enabling constructive dismissal under s10A and common law, awarded unpaid overtime, unpaid daily allowance, notice pay and long service payment, but dismissed claim for dignity/emotional harm for lack of evidence.
11 Apr 2024

李前鳳對中國信託商業銀行股份有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1144
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA27/2023

The tribunal correctly applied s31Y of the Employment Ordinance and the claimant produced no credible evidence of an internal policy or other basis for recovery; therefore the claim was bound to fail and properly characterised as frivolous or vexatious under s29, so leave to appeal was refused as there was no arguable legal error or excess of jurisdiction.
24 Nov 2023

TSUI KOON WAH v. L&L CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3045
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA21/2023

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant's grounds were factual disputes about credibility and findings of fact by the Deputy Presiding Officer and did not disclose any arguable error of law; the Deputy PO lawfully found sufficient and substantive reasons for dismissal based on conduct and properly applied legal principles regarding vaccine pass, garden leave, notice and redundancy.
19 Oct 2020

MOHAMMAD KHURSHID QAZI v. KARBHARI JAL NADIRSHAW t/a JAL N. KARBHARI & CO, SOLICITORS & NOTARIES

Citation

[2020] HKDC 928
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3838/2019

The contemporaneous documentary evidence (salary records, Employer's Returns, plaintiff's tax returns and MPF records) consistently showed varied salary payments and undermined the plaintiff's account; the plaintiff lacked credibility, had admitted the arrangements were a sham in the Labour Tribunal, and therefore the unpaid salary and related contractual claims failed; however the plaintiff was entitled to statutory long service payment and one month's wages in lieu calculated on the last full month wages of HK$4,500, reduced by MPF benefits withdrawn, yielding net awards of HK$9,110 (long s…
14 May 2019

唐偉健對保良局

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2843/2017

The amended statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action in multiple respects: the plaintiff had received his employee MPF contributions from the trustee; he lacked statutory entitlement to long service payment because his service was under five years; the impugned claims arise under the Employment Ordinance and fall within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction; the proceedings are plainly time‑barred and amount to an abuse of process. Allowing amendment could not cure the jurisdictional and limitation defects. Accordingly the amended claim was struck out and all…
29 Nov 2018

AKTHTER TANJINA v. PUSHKARNA NEENA

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2820
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA18/2018

Leave to appeal was granted because the presence of the IOM report identifying the claimant as a victim of trafficking, combined with the Court of Appeal decision in Z N, raised arguable questions of law sufficient to justify granting permission despite the appeal being based largely on credibility findings.